Video begins at Aviation Advisory Committee Discussion
Full MeetingTranscript
machine-generated(Link to Aviation Advisory Committee Discussion)
Opening and Flag Salute
Mayor Pina: April 5th study session of the Des Moines City Council to order and will Deputy Mayor Pennington please lead us in the flag salute.
Deputy Mayor Pennington: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Mayor Pina: We could let the record show that all council members are present. And council, if I was thinking for continuity sake since we have four distinct items on our agenda that instead of just having public comment all at one time if someone signed up let’s have them speak before we take the topic and then speak before we take the topic. Is everybody okay with that? Okay.
Mayor Pina: I cannot tell, Luisa, I’ll be looking down. I I couldn’t tell if you nodded or not. You’re okay though. Okay, thank you.
Topic 1: Telecommunications Code Update
Mayor Pina: Okay, our first topic is the telecommunications code update. And it looks like we have one person signed up to speak. Is that Julian Low?
Julian Low (Puget Sound Energy): Okay. Hi, good evening. Julian Low with Puget Sound Energy. I’m the local government affairs manager for city of Des Moines and I just wanted to say to the city staff, council members that you know PSE has a pole services division whereby we work with municipalities and jurisdictions on street lighting issues, but we also know that jurisdictions throughout our service territory are dealing with small cell deployment issues. And so if again if council members, staff have any questions at all, please let us know how we can be a resource. I’m happy to connect you with our subject matter experts on small cell and pole attachment and collocation issues. That’s Bill Martin and Matthew Krauss. So again, let us know how we can be a partner with the city. Look forward to our continued productive relationship moving together to make Des Moines a great place to live, work, and play. Thank you.
Mayor Pina: Before you step down, Michael’s going to have a comment. I would also like to give you the moment to make a comment of what you’ll be doing in the city working with our small businesses.
Julian Low: Thank you, Mayor. Just please be brief, but please go ahead. Let me introduce my colleague Leslie Myers who is with our customer outreach team and she’ll share a quick little blurb about that.
Leslie Myers (PSE): Yeah. Hi. Hi everybody. I’ll be very quick. Actually I spent most of today in Des Moines talking to the small businesses about the campaign we’ve got going on next week. Essentially we’re going to be going door-to-door and setting appointments for our contractors to come back through and replace all of the lighting in our business in the Des Moines businesses with energy efficient LEDs. There’s no cost for the bulbs. There’s no cost for the installation. And customers should see immediate savings on their bills once it’s in place. We’re already getting really good feedback. People are excited in Des Moines for sure. Thank you. Free to save money. Yeah.
Mayor Pina: Thank you. Julian. So, one thing that the city is excited about partnership with PSE is the undergrounding of utilities in the alleyway like 223rd down to 227th. And we’ve worked closely with your staff and we appreciate their participation and resolutions that we’re coming to to move that forward. So, that’s another area I think that we have partnership.
Julian Low: Great. Well, definitely know you know, a lot of great things happening economically here in the city and that’s just sort of one small part where we play a role. So, thank you so much for that and I’ll be sure to share that with my colleagues.
Mayor Pina: Great. Thanks everyone. We’ll tell them your characterization of a half a million dollar project was just another small thing you’re doing.
Julian Low: Okay. No, definitely know that that’s no small investment by the city as well. So, thank you again.
Telecommunications Code Update Presentation
Mayor Pina: Thank you. Okay. That takes us to our telecommunications code update and we have a presentation by our city attorney, Tim George.
City Attorney Tim George: Thank you, mayor. Well, I’d like to introduce our consultant. This is Scott Snyder sitting next to me. He’s an attorney with the law firm Ogden Murphy Wallace and we retained him about a year ago to help us navigate this new technology kind of the maze of small cell technology, federal law, state law, and then the interplay of the telecommunications companies and where our city needs to be moving forward in relation to this. So Scott’s going to provide this presentation tonight which is basically just an introduction to this and we will we are currently working on a draft ordinance to update our codes to this new technology and that will be brought forward later in the summer. So I’ll hand it over to Scott at this point.
Scott Snyder (Consultant): Good evening again. Scott Snyder. Interesting that the gentleman from PSE was here because the PSE and the industry are important players in crafting your ordinance and we’ve worked collaboratively in other communities with both the industry and the pole owner who’s a major player. So part after the staff and I are done with the draft ordinance, one of the next steps will be circulating it for comment to PSE and the other users of the polls.
I note the sign behind me says no cell phones. So this would be one of the few places in the country where that’s true. A lot of the let’s start with the why.
As you’re aware, smartphones are they have a total communications traditional role as a phone, but 80% of the data that’s transmitted through smart devices these days is video. You’ve probably seen ads for, you know, free Netflix for life if you sign up with a company. It emphasizes that we’ve got a technology that’s both important to individuals but it’s that that volume is driving the need to densify the existing network and we’ll talk about what densification means.
These that we’re going to be going through these slides are from the industry themselves and basically what they show is exponential growth. The densification. You may have had that experience of having your cell phone, having bars, but not being able to download a dense a video or some other dense bit of information. Macro sites, the tall towers, monopoles that have been the backbone of the of the cellular industry are simply insufficient for a variety of reasons. It can be shading by buildings. It can be high density nodes like a high school parking lot. Where there’s a lot of data usage. When we started less than two years ago working in this area you know we were looking primarily at downtown areas again high school parking lots what’s this is a fascinating area because it’s constantly evolving. If you’re I I watch way too much DIY television and if you you know you see the refrigerators that you can check and see what’s in them or the gentleman who’s at the basketball game and you know is checking his security device to see if the burglar’s in the backyard. All of that internet of things is supported by the cell phone the current cellular network and in order to make it work and to densify the existing signals from the macro sites small cells are being deployed. So the next question so what how small is small cell on the right your standard monopole or tower which can be anywhere from 60 to 120 ft. Small cells are deployed on light poles and typically existing utility poles. So ideally from the industry’s point of view the that equipment is being located anywhere from 20 to 40 feet in the air as opposed to 120 ft person there for scale. State statute defines what a small cell is basically an equipment cabinet of 17 cubic feet and antenna an antenna of three cubic feet. The problem with the state definition is it doesn’t address how many antennas and it ignores or it doesn’t address a lot of the equipment that’s associated and required to make the small cell work on a pole. The antenna that I mentioned at the top one antenna goes in one direction. There can be two which gives a you know a line of sight transmission. In order to maximize the use of a pole, it may be four antennas which give a 360 degree working radius.
The I mentioned the things that aren’t included at the bottom. We’ve got the box, the equipment box, but you’ll note on the left hand side of the pole the conduit. The conduit state and federal law electrical codes require that fiber be in a separate conduit from electrical power. Those same statutes and electrical codes require that the conduit stand off 6 in from the pole so that although most people use cherrypicker trucks these days that someone could in theory climb the pole safely.
Mayor Pina: Can I interrupt you for one? Yes, sir. Please. We’re trying to get a signal up on that TV so folks can look that way if they can’t see this, but if you’d like to turn your chairs, you’re welcome to. Don’t worry about disruption. And I just wanted to give us a minute to it. Doesn’t look like we’re quite there. So probably it may not happen tonight, but in the future we’ll activate that screen. So yes, sir. Go ahead.
Scott Snyder: Thanks. The gentleman from PSE, I want to emphasize PSE is an important player. The pole owner is going to help define the policy box what things look like. They do so by pole attachment agreements. Now small cells again this is a installation on an existing wooden utility pole. They can be installed internally and externally on the gooseneck light poles. They can be installed in decorative lighting poles. The latter two are often owned by municipalities.
The next slide I’ve added in the last two weeks because the one of the newer forms of small cell installation are strand mounts. They’re typically less than three cubic feet as opposed to the 17 plus cubic feet that we were talking about. They’re not an alternative to the small cells, but they can help extend the range and cut down the number of small cell installations.
One question I frequently ask, it’s one company per pole. The pole owners, whether it’s PSE, Tacoma Power and Light, Seattle Light, don’t allow more than one operator on a pole, one company on a pole. We’ve been working on a draft ordinance. Your city has a current they wireless communication provision that deals with facilities throughout the city. Small cells are challenging from a local government standpoint because they by going on existing poles in the right of way they reverse a trend that’s been underway for the last 25 30 years of undergrounding.
You know I the time I’ve been a in the municipal practice I began working on a GTE lawsuit that held that cities had the right to require undergrounding. The FCC has determined that the existing poles in the right of way are a resource for the deployment of small cells. And one thing I’ll emphasize several times during this presentation, the size of the policy box that the city has to operate in is to a certain extent defined by state law, federal law. The FCC is be frank a captive federal organization whose part of whose charge is to promote interstate commerce and to promote the deployment of small cell networks. So under the past administration that was you know at one level of intensity under chairman Pai there they have a an ear in Washington and a lot of heat right now is going on about how much the utilities can charge for pole attachment agreements to put these facilities in place. But between the FCC, the state, and the pole owner, in your case, primarily PSE, they’re defining what things look like and where they’re going to go. The city obviously has an interest in your urban environment and what things look like. But again, we always need to keep in mind that this is being driven by consumer choices. It’s something that’s necessitated in order to densify the network and make sure that people can use the devices that you have in front of you but also in a way that is thoughtful as thoughtful as possible in terms of the city’s built environment.
I mentioned sort of the comp not complexity but the challenges another challenge is that in most cities for years use of the public right of way has been an engineering function whereas the installation of the macro towers has been a land use function because of federal shock clocks that I’ll touch on in a minute shock clocks time limits on consideration land use does not work well deployment in the public right of way under the growth management act is not a land use process.
And in order to meet the federal guidelines, tools like conditional use permits that maybe are completely appropriate for a macro site or a large tower just won’t work if you’re talking about deployments of anywhere from dozens to hundreds of small cells in various communities. Give you an idea of the rate of change. I mentioned the data transmission. Seattle City Light four years ago had seven small cell applications. The year after they had three. Last year they didn’t have any. And so far this year they’ve had 13,000.
The companies particularly Verizon is one of the first, but all of the companies are going to be deploying small cells in the public right of way in the immediate future.
The city’s right of way has typically been handled through the exercise of franchising powers by the city and that’s a very strong power that when exercised by a city council. It’s a contracting power. The courts give great deference to city council determinations about franchising and contracts. You can’t force a contract on someone, but you can’t you it you have a lot more difference. It’s not a land use process where there are two players. You as the city are the stewards of the public right of way. I mentioned the land use process and shot clocks. As I noted, right of way use is not a land use action. And in as the staff and I have been working the model we’re working on is trying to emphasize the city’s strongest cards that is to use franchising control and contracting control and using the land use process for very for the more difficult process situations that is where do you put a pole in an area that’s been underground this is above ground technology So, there needs to be some new facility. And you can imagine if you’re in a community a neighborhood that just paid for an LID to underground and now you find the poles are going right back up to put another device in the air. It’s design and limiting the impacts will be important. That’s true for new poles. Main street areas, design districts are also important areas where the city whether directly through investment in ornamental polls or through design standards that you’ve adopted for a signature district look. We need to maintain that look through the code process.
As I mentioned, the size of the policy box is defined by state and federal law. A city may not exclude a wireless communication provider from the city. I mentioned the Federal Communications Commission. This is interstate commerce in its truest form. And there’s a lot of logic behind the FCC’s position. Des Moines, if Des Moines had one standard and Normandy Park another and Burien another, it would be virtually impossible to have a coordinated network because all these small cells work together. So, it’s important that the cities one not exclude and two not try and dictate the technological choices of the provider. That’s prohibited by federal law. You can’t prohibit a provider from closing significant gaps in coverage. Again, this is a technology that it it it can be mildly irritating in terms of a drop call, but in the near future, if there are driverless vehicles that are operated through a small cell network, as we get into the sort of the next Uber generation here, it it it there are public safety issues and making sure that those drops don’t don’t occur. A city may not regulate radio frequency emissions, RF emissions. It’s pre, it’s preempted by federal law. And the city can’t discriminate between service providers.
Council Member: Yes, ma’am. So, if this Uber thing resonated, if if there are those I hope not in time where there are those driverless and we determine that we don’t want poles or we won’t have as many poles to to deal with these cells. Then would we be liable if there was an accident? Is that what you’re saying?
Scott Snyder: Actually I’m I’m I’m a step earlier. The city the city can’t prohibit the closing those gaps in coverage. Oh, they can’t. So yeah. So even if you for example prohibited new poles or you tried to maintain underground areas you’re going to have to have some out to allow the installation of whether it’s rooftop facilities or standalone poles to provide that uniform coverage.
Council Member: Yes ma’am. Again that’s again no gap in coverage. Cities can address aesthetic issues while you can’t if a provider shows that there’s a significant gap in coverage, you got to allow them a means to to close it, but you can require that they use the least intrusive means to do so. And as you’ll see when we get to the standards, we started off with, I think, six lines of, design guidelines. We’re now up to seven pages. Dealing with, you know, wood poles, concrete poles, metal poles, ornamental poles, those wire mount or strand mounted facilities that we I showed in an earlier picture.
A city can regulate under state law new poles in the right of way and utility poles over 60 feet in height. And you can also charge ground lease fees for those facilities. I mentioned early and the role of PSE and they will be invited I hope to any to the table to discuss the draft. We typically circulate the draft to the companies and to PSE for comment. The city’s light standards you have an important role in and the city as a pole owner can also control that design by pole attachment agreements. They want to use your pole. It’ll look it’ll look like it’ll look the way you would like it to look. State and and national electrical code also play a big part in where the facilities are placed.
Mr. George and I have will be contacting PSE about the placement and the use of the communication space in conjunction with one of your neighboring communities. Just PSE’s has typically required that the facilities be at the top of the poll so they can use the cherrypicker trucks. In a slope environment with a sound view, the higher it is, the more people will see it. So, hopefully we’re we’re trying to be proactive and ask PSE to take a look at locating those facilities under the wires rather than over the electrical transmission wires where appropriate. Shot clocks. I mentioned this one of the reasons land use doesn’t work very well and why the ordinance will focus on franchising powers. Franchises, master permits, cities have 120 days under state law to grant collocations that is the location of facilities on existing towers and base stations. You’ve got 90 days to act and you’ve only got 60 days to act in terms of upgrading facilities. Your code already contains these provisions. Your code also already contains fairly comprehensive and good provisions regarding the deployment of macro facilities. So the goal here is to fit small cell regulation into your existing ordinance structure.
Franchise application. The companies have the option of as if they’re new to the city to come in and look locate small cells in detail, negotiate. The council’s decision as a legislative act is given a lot of difference by the court. That’s a good time to get what you want. Existing companies with existing franchises will need another quicker administrative process. So, as we go through, we’re going to be incorporating the federal shock clocks, taking advantage of the court’s deference to the exercise of your franchising power.
We I think it’s also important to understand that company utilities have been using your right of way appropriately for many years without a lot of regulation by the city. We’re talking about small cell facilities. It’s something else on the pole. But the utility companies have been putting transformers on poles without a lot of input from the cities for years. So we’re trying to treat small cell deployments like other uses of the public right of way.
There will be small cell design and concealment standards. There’ll be both standards for the typical kinds of poles and then a process to develop a concealment plan in situation in your design districts or other districts where you feel there may be a special need undergrounded areas. Someone may ask a question that usually comes up is what about the shoreline? The good news and the bad news is that the shoreline is not a great place to put small cells because they don’t work very well over water. The technology is a downward focus and it gets it has trouble with water. So, they’re typically not along the shoreline.
Again, want to use think of your existing utility pools as a resource and make sure that they’re they’re used first and their use is maximized. You’re going to retain your existing macro tower provision and again save that scrutiny for new poles and deviations from your standards.
Mayor Pina: So I’m trying to get an idea of the how many of these things are we talking about? So for one particular service provider let’s say Verizon are we talking on average here in Des Moines are we talking about one of these every 100 feet every six blocks?
Scott Snyder: 500 to 800 feet depending on frequency. Each operator bids and buys from the federal or leases from the federal government a different frequency. So, you know, they vary on how far apart they can be. But typically over a block apart.
Mayor Pina: Okay. And then you had mentioned ideally only one service provider per pole, right? But if we found an area where a poll was not going to be so ugly and it’s not going to block views and be intrusive, is it possible to do a bigger poll and get a whole bunch of service providers on one poll that’s less of a visual impairment?
Scott Snyder: Not on an existing poll and that’s the choice of the pole owners. In theory, you could locate facilities on poles and what you’re going to end up with in all likelihood over time is a maximization of your existing polls for different providers. I mean, Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T, Mobility, Verizon all have their own designs and will have their own separate networks.
Mayor Pina: Would it be possible for the city to put up one big pole to get a whole bunch of providers in one area to reduce a number of these things?
Scott Snyder: The short answer is no. Because unlike macro facilities which work well in the air and many cities take advantage of water tower sites for macro deployment, you know, they’re a great place to put it. City gets revenue and you can’t really see it on top of the the water tower. These need to be anywhere from 25 to 40 feet in the air to work. They’re filling in the space between the macro towers. So again, these are going to be they’re it’s a different technology.
Mayor Pina: So, so I I I what I’m understanding is is we have kind of a narrow scope of of how much control we actually have based on on federal and and state laws.
Scott Snyder: Correct. Yes, sir.
Mayor Pina: And and then the the other question that I have is currently now and you see the advertiser I think X and I’ll use Xfinity. They’re getting into the cell business, it sounds like, and currently they use our right of ways and and have refused to enter into a franchise agreement. Is this a tool to get them to enter into an agreement with us?
Scott Snyder: Well, but just just in that that’s part of it, but just in general, is this is, you know, is there an upside to this for for the city?
I don’t want to be too negative, but no, there aren’t many upsides to this. Again, I think what we’re going to be seeing over the next 5 to 10 years is the movement of what you now think of as cable television to it’s all data and more and more it’s say the cable cable TV and your revenue from cable TV will decline as more and more generations of users use smartphones and small tablets to get their to check their Facebook or YouTube or you know watch TV. It’s a different generational thing. And it’s it’s also it’s business. Under federal law you can charge a 5% franchise fee for cable television but not for internet use, data use, or telecom. And if you’re providing data, how are you going to provide data if you can provide a service for 5% less? I think what we’re going to be seeing is a migration to this technology from cable TV. Now that said, Comcast and some of the other providers have already deployed, you may have seen on strands small white boxes about this this big the and wondered what they were. there are Wi-Fi networks being deployed by Comcast and some of the other cable companies because you know back in the 60s and late 60s and 70s when those first franchises were first approved they basically had the right to erect towers and cable and underground cable and antenna so they’re very broad and those companies are deploying their Wi-Fi facilities already have. There are hundreds of thousands of Comcast Wi-Fi boxes already on strands.
Council Member: Thanks. So when you’re talking about the distance that’s needed between cells 5 to 800 feet and you’re considering for example I’ll just pick a street south 216th where we’ve just done a redone our entire corridor with new beautiful light posts. You’re only going to have room enough on those posts if only one company per pole max out at two possibly three companies then can use South 216th Street and so do you so you I can tell you have a response to that secondarily if we since we cannot prevent them from a company from entering our community or closing gaps would we have the option of building the pole or do they have can they say no we build the pole anyway you can see where I’m going with that.
Scott Snyder: Sure the the first deployments I mean the the major resource are wooden poles the wooden what we think of as electric poles utility poles that’s the primary resource if a company wants to put anything on your decorative pole or your or your light standard, they’re going to have to sign a pole attachment agreement. You’ve got a lot of leverage and typically there are designs that can incorporate most of I mean the antennas have to be outside to operate but you can require for example a replacement pole with the equipment interior to the pole. And other typical provisions are require drivers hit poles. So, you know, you make sure that in your yard there are spares, you know, that they provide. Having one of the provisions of the ordinance encourages, we have a lot of push back from AT&T on this I’m sorry, I don’t want to finger AT&T. It’s actually T-Mobile because their equipment is slightly different. Most cities want if you put money into a look. You want that look to be uniform throughout the district. And again, that’s one of the design requirements that will be central to what you do, making so if someone wants to use your light pole and they put a replace one, they have to pay for the replacement pole. And two, put as much in the interior of the pole as possible and then conceal the equipment that goes on the outside.
Council Member: So, if there aren’t enough poles for the amount of companies that want to enter a certain corridor or area, they just need to be installed.
Scott Snyder: You know, there may be a time out in the future when all the poles are full. If technology does what technology does, it continues to get smaller and things will change. I mean it’s kind of there will be an event horizon when the polls are full but the question is where will technology be 10 15 years from now I I my crystal ball is not that clear.
Council Member: Thank you. So another question is that is that right? Can I keep asking? Sure. Okay. So could you talk for a moment about the the difference between the reasoning with these polls? For example, the macro poles can be placed on lease lease land from a private person. So, if you’re in a neighborhood with entirely undergrounded power and you only need to go 25 minimum feet, what would prevent this movement from being able to lease the top of a of home? Are you putting the equipment on private property in the tops of homes or in some like that? I know that it sounds like it all has to be in rights of way but if you’re in a community like that then you don’t mess with the view.
Scott Snyder: There are you know in in well couple responses this technology does not work well on the top of buildings. Macro sites facilities are often placed on commercial and apartment buildings, but these facilities because they’re line of sight work best in the right of way where they have 360 degree access to again so people’s phones can read them. If they’re on the side of buildings, they only get 180 degrees. Top of buildings, they’ll be shading down. One of the reasons the FCC is so focused on seeing existing utility poles as a an asset to be utilized is that’s where this technology works best. Now in the undergrounded areas or design areas the typical things you would go to first are new lighting poles using and it’s going to be a revenue source for the city to replace your light poles in the area. There are standalone they look sort of like flag poles. They’re not that visually intrusive. Schoolyards on for example not I don’t want to get parents excited about, you know, radio waves in their children, but high school light standards are a great place to put these. A the light standard in a parking lot, for example, at at you know, your local 7-Eleven, another good place to put these in undergrounded areas. So there are alternatives, but the ordinance will require that if you’re going into an underground area or a special design area, you have to individually create a concealment plan that fits in with the neighborhood in the community. So that’s a more again I think of this as one maximizing all those the existing utility poles fill them up first and then in the more require greater scrutiny and specific plans for those problematic areas areas you want to protect.
Council Member: Thank you. You mentioned the radio waves in the school and that was one of the questions I had is are there studies about the health hazards of these you know cell phones the year and the radiation and stuff like that. I have concerns.
Scott Snyder: Yes sir and the short answer is cities are preempted by federal law from regulating. There are things that you can do and the ordinance will contain them all. Require certification by a electrical engineer for the each specific facility to say that it complies with federal law. Your franchise will have a provision that provides that if there’s a something is not functioning properly, it be immediately removed. Again the according to the FCC and industry spokesman you’re a lot more risk using your microwave in your kitchen. But there are people that there where there’s a difference of opinion but the short answer is everything that you are permitted to do by the federal government will be included in the ordinance.
Council Member: So in a given city do they have an estimate of how many of these we’re talking about?
Scott Snyder: Well again you can kind of envision that there will be networks and each provider will have its own network and equipment. I mean there we may reach a point Verizon’s the first that they’re deploying in your area. They’re the first ones coming through. They have they’re putting the most money into it. You’ve probably seen the ads with some of the other carriers making fun of their, you know, 5G 200 network. Again, they’re upgrading. But each company will have its own technology and will be putting its own facilities.
Council Member: Yeah, I was just interested if they kind of had a number per square mile or whatever. You know, they they they typically come in networks. And each provider in a community your size there may be from 20 to 50 locations depending on their frequency per carrier.
Council Member: Yes. Okay. We already asked the building question. So obviously some of those photos pretty aesthetically ugly for lack of a better word. Obviously things are going to get smaller and they’re probably going to get more powerful, more efficient and so forth. Is there any recourse the city has about upgrading and updating these in the future? I mean, if we got to take them and they’re, lack of better word, but ugly, can we what can we do, you know, to to improve the aesthetics maybe with better technology or smaller technology or do we have any recourse is my question.
Scott Snyder: Within the state definition, no. But but let’s let’s say this, understand that the technology has already evolved where the companies don’t need 17 cubic feet for their equipment cabinet. But they’re at the state legislature very protective of it because they’re going to need that space when they roll out 5G. You’ve heard, you know, there a lot of talk about 5G. Understand that the technology that’s being deployed now is 4G technology. 5G is on the way, but they just, you know, less than six months ago leased the the frequencies for 5G. Nobody knows what the equipment looks like. Yes, it will be smaller, but it will typically go in the equipment boxes that are already there. Again, the the cell the cell companies they’re business and they want to deploy as they they want to buy as as little stuff as possible. And as it gets smaller, yes, it will be internal.
Council Member: If I could dovetail off that question though, I’ve been in, actually, Oceanside towns that I don’t know how they did it, but it their cell tower looks like a tree. And so they had somehow moved forward with design guideline, not guidelines, I think requirements in their ordinances. they were able to get certain things because you’re right the the pole the polls I mean maybe we can get inside but the numbers you’re you’re speaking of it’s going to be pretty tight fit and each poll is going to have to be I don’t know it’s going to be it it’s limited based on its the network access and so forth. So I guess what I’m saying is to since it seems like because of the level we are in the pecking order that we are going to have less and less choice. I think what what what council member Mahoney was getting to and what I’m want to clarify is what exactly can we say we want and and and and need and again in for new polls polls in your design districts and others you there the ordinance will provide for a specifically developed concealment plan and that may be a franken tree like you’re discussing. I assume you don’t want a saguaro cactus. I didn’t know it had a technical term there. The the companies I’ve seen I mean there are catalogs you know thicker than your binder with hundreds of designs. And again the typical the the wooden poles are going to fill up first and the you know that’s it’s we can argue about how how intrusive it is but I think we’d all agree it’s ugly but is any uglier than the transformer I’ve got in front of my house. you know, a week ago in in your design districts. You mentioned your I’ve talked to staff about your are the blue poles the the new poles that you put in. You know, part of part of your focus will be saying when the time comes to use them that the equipment is internal to a replacement pole and only the minimum necessary antenna on the outside would be visible.
Color, color and non-reflective color, making sure that to the extent you can it fits in with the poll. As we proceed through the process one things I always recommend is get industry spokesman here, have them talk about their technology. I don’t want to be a shill for them. The Verizon engineer, and she meant it as a compliment, told me one time that 90% of my presentation is accurate. You know, it’s I’m a lawyer. I’m not a an electrical engineer. and having their representatives here to talk about RF frequency to show you their designs to discuss concealment measures I is an important part of the process as is having PSE at the table to see what you can do with the pole design because as I mentioned a lot of what’s ugly about that is the conduits and but the conduit is that’s what’s required by both the national and state electrical codes having that offsets 6 in creates, you know, clutter. But there’s some practical common sense things you that you are the standards will require. Make sure that the equipment box is on the street side of the pole so that the pole is between that box and the property owner. Doesn’t have to look it looks as little of the box as they can.
But we’ll be talking.
Council Member: Yeah. So and maybe the person from PSE Energy can answer this, but what’s the spacing between poles between power poles?
Julian Low: Okay. And my guess is they’re less than 500 ft between poles. And what’s the spacing between our our city lights on 216th and on 24th Avenue where we put in the new style lights less than 500 ft. So So we have a a a pretty high likelihood that since there’s one vendor per pole that every pole in the city is going to be hung with this stuff. Okay. Thanks.
Council Member: So I have a question for you. This is not a technical question by any means. Okay. The idea is that you know kind of the invert the inversion of having relatively little power to determine our fate in this process. Have you observed is it typical for you know any of the the the providers of these services you know that the benefits obviously efficiency in the market and market share and you know the comprehensive nature of their networks and access and all of that but have you seen them reach out to cities and try to participate in ways that create good faith with cities above and beyond the requirements?
Scott Snyder: Very much so. Let me give you an example. You may be aware that Mountlake Terrace is creating a downtown center. Dorothy Parker once said, I think that Philadelphia there’s no there there was that but that idea of they’re they’re trying to create a look and a downtown core. We had a meeting all the cell providers in Snohomish County PUD came to discuss just that. You know, again, where can we locate facilities around it? Let me an example. A a cell provider does not want to make an investment to go on a pole in an area that’s going to be underground and then have to build another facility somewhere else. The the the point I suppose in theory we could end up with something on every pole. In reality, these are going to be networks, and there’ll be some streets that have facilities, others that don’t.
One one policy suggestion, you you’re you’re going to determine what’s right for your city, but I’d suggest that getting into individual poll placement is a is on the road to madness in the sense that these facilities are located in a network and they have to be certain spacing is determined by engineering. I’d suggest that to the extent you can rely on their engineers to put the general location. What I’m getting at is if I come in and say, “I don’t want that pole in front of my house.” And you have a process that moves it, you’re moving it in front of someone else’s house. And when you do, you may be rippling 20 other polls and their location in front of 20 other people’s houses and realizing that over time these facilities will be installed. You know, there’s it’s like hanging art. You know, when you put it up, you’re going to see it over time. People will get used to the environment. I’m not saying that it’s it’s an improvement, but I I am suggesting that to the extent you can let neutral engineering decisions drive placement rather than political concerns because again there it’s if it’s not your house, it’s somebody else’s.
Council Member: So in regard to policy and Washington state laws you know Washington is trying to move forward to mandating this technology so and taking it totally out of the hands of cities right they’re mo they’re trying that didn’t pass this year and so my question has to do with let’s say we enter is there Is there a benefit to entering into some of these agreements before the state of Washington passes any of this leg legislation? In other words, would some of our previously made agreements hold out underneath any new state law that would take the power away from us? So, do you see what I’m saying? Is there a benefit in creating agreements before Washington state takes away all of our power? And if they do, do they will those state laws override anything anyway?
Scott Snyder: Okay. Constitutionally, city a legislature can impair a a contract. So an existing franchiser contract will remain in effect. Alana Zana, my firm, and I have worked real closely with Victoria Lincoln at the AWC lobbyist over the past two sessions. Washington, 35 states have passed industry legislation. The legislature here has passed twice. A lot of the drive initially was these darn cities aren’t, you know, they’re not they don’t have permitting procedures. They’re not getting ready for us to come in. We’ve got all this infrastructure. You’re denying people infrastructure. And what what has been occurring is cities like yours are stepping up and passing ordinances. The industry focused from the first year of basically preempting every darn thing. In the last session, they were more focused on limiting pole attachment costs, what utilities and cities could charge for the right to be on their polls. And in each case, there were grandfathering provisions in the legislation that acknowledged cities who’d step forward and taken action. So if the question if you’re yes there’s an advantage to doing something and being proactive.
Mayor Pina: Well I think first of all I want to say your presentation and your your wealth knowledge is very helpful. A little discouraging at times but very helpful. But you might get a cactus in your front a cactus. No I I’m going to stick with you. I I think I want a palm tree. But anyway, I think it’s going to lead us to much further discussion. So I I really want to thank you for your time tonight and helping us go through this. I think in the interest of the other topics that we have Sure. Sure. brief conclusion here. So where we’re at right now, we have a draft ordinance that still needs some work on the staff end. It’s about 45 pages right now. It’s a lengthy document. And so when we’re done with that, we’re going to send that out to the, telecommunications providers, PSE, and get that input. And then we’ll, we’ll take all of that, we’ll put something together for the city council to start to consider. This would be, something that would likely come back to the council in June.
City Attorney Tim George: So, that’s kind of the time frame we’re looking at. And we’d most likely be coming for a public hearing at that time. Okay. Or a first reading.
Scott Snyder: Yeah. Now, that’s you’re still on a pretty fast timeline for something like this. So, well, we’ve been working on it for a long time. So, yeah. Well, that shows based on the amount of information we’ve been given tonight.
Mayor Pina: So with that before we go into our our next topic I’d like to give us a five minute break and allow people to reposition so they can see the board and stuff a little bit better and then we will reconvene. So that’ll take us to…
[BREAK]
Topic 2: Aviation Advisory Committee
Mayor Pina: Okay, I’m going to bring us back and our next topic is our aviation advisory committee. But as mentioned in the beginning before before we go into the presentation, I will start with public comments. So, our first person is is it Dana Holloway?
Dana Holloway: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Dana Holloway. I’m a 42-year resident of Federal Way. And in the last three and a half years, the airplane noise in Federal Way has gotten louder. The airplanes are flying at lower altitudes, and the frequency of the airplanes in the flight path can be less than one minute apart. I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know and experience for yourselves. Needless to say, I was looking for information to learn about this situation, and I found the Quiet Skies of Puget Sound Facebook page. I learned that people in Des Moines had the same issues and had created a group of like-minded residents to learn and share information and to take action.
In the last six months, I’ve driven around your little city of Des Moines, and I couldn’t believe how really loud and low your airplanes are over your community. I realize why your residents have organized trying to protect their deteriorating quality of life and health impacts caused by living near the airport. As elected officials for the city of Des Moines, I encourage you to do anything and everything that you in your power to stop the damage being done to your community. We need to band together to make our voices heard. And I’d like to end on a quote by Helen Keller. Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so much. Thank you.
Mayor Pina: Thank you.
Marian Bukkanen?: Good evening Mayor, city council. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. I live under the third runway off of Des Moines Memorial Way. I have constant aircraft noise day and night. When the third runway first came in, we were led to believe that it was going to be for runoff and now it’s a regular air flight path. There’s no runoff. It’s day and night. It’s robbing me of sleep, peace of mind, my health. You know, I’ve been reading all this stuff about the health issues. It’s now affecting my cable reception, my cell phone reception. I’ll be talking to people a lot and my cell phone will just go off and I’ll hear an airplane so I know what’s going on. I’m also hearing that there’s going to be a huge increase in the volume of airplanes in this area. And I don’t see anyone I read about it. I’m also a Quiet Skies member, by the way. I hear rumors. I read about it. But why isn’t anyone having the FAA come in here and be honest with us? You know, what’s this next gen thing that places all over the country are are hearing about? Why isn’t anyone telling us about this? I’m hearing that we have as much traffic as Dallas Fort Worth that has like over 10,000 acres to our 2500. We need another airport now. We needed it last year. I don’t see our elected officials driving this issue. I hear that everybody’s happy that the new FAA building is going to generate a lot more money in taxes. There was this huge initiative the last couple years for the pay to park down at the marina. Our property taxes have gone up over 20% in des moines in this area and still their silence about the health impact of the airport, the growth of the airport. I’d like to see the city officials come out with a strong message to us that you see that the health impacts are going to be horrible on us. the increased traffic. I’m sure most of you live in this area. Don’t you Aren’t you worried about the same thing that we are? So, I implore you to please come out with a stronger message. The FAA needs to control the nighttime flights. It used to be pretty quiet from 12 to 6. Now, it’s not. And I don’t I see that they’re just getting away with murder. And here we are, citizens 20% property tax increase. Come on, you guys. We need your help. Thank you.
Mayor Pina: Thank you, Mr. JC Harris.
JC Harris: So, a visitor coming down 216th and seeing the gleaming new FAA building would be surprised to learn that there had been any sort of, disagreement between the cities and the airport as recently as 10 years ago. And so it’s no wonder that residents here are kind of emotionally checked out on the whole problem. Because they see that building and it psychologically tells them what the city’s position is. You know that you welcome the airport and all that it has brought to the city.
I saw on the agenda that you are welcoming suggestions and I was an engineer and these may not sound practical but they’re very practical. You should stop taking any grants from the airport. It does no good. It creates this psychological idea of partnership. The port has done a tremendous job in rebuilding this idea that you go to a Highline Forum and everybody has coffee and donuts and it’s almost like, hey we’re all on the same team together you know fighting in the great wars. We’re not on the same team. Tenyears ago, we were ready to beat each other to death. And that problem never got addressed. Okay?
They won, we lost. But what was sued over, the problem didn’t go away. Now I’m an engineer, not a research scientist so I stop as soon as I get a good enough answer. And the data that I need to know I got in 1997. There’s plenty of really good data on what needs to be done and they knew what needed to be done when they sued. They weren’t idiots and it was real simple. Cap the flights at the levels of two runways because SeaTac was a two runway airport. If they were stupid enough to build a third runway, it’s like a guy building or buying a Ferrari. If he’s stupid enough to buy a Ferrari, he doesn’t get to drive at 200 miles an hour. It’s still 65.
And the solution is simply to roll things back to a level of flights that is reasonable where it was in 2010. That’s it. There are no other mitigations that will work. Thank you,
Lee Ryan Cen: Thank you. Hello all and thank you for hearing me. I’ve lived in the South SeaTac and Des Moines area for 29 years and there’s some exciting things going on in the city. you know, the the FAA, the Bartell drug, some of the things that that you’re, you know, looking at doing down in the sound and and that’s that’s great for for you know revenue coming in, but there are some things as far as a citizen that I’m really not happy about and I haven’t been happy for a long time. And the major thing is the airport noise. It’s just something else. I’ve got one runway plane coming over one end of my property and then the other planes are coming over the other end. So, I’m just like sandwiched in between and it’s, you know, I don’t need to repeat what everybody else has said about health is issues and such as that. I don’t feel hopeful and and I know that your hands are tied in some areas and and, you know, we don’t know what you guys have to go through to make things happen, but, I’m not willing to wait until I’m, you know, drooling oatmeal onto my, you know, onto my bib in a nursing home for things to change. I’ve put my house up for sale. My whole thought was when I moved into Des Moines that I was going to be here forever. this is where I was going to die. And I was I I love the area and I adore my home and my property, but I can’t deal with the noise. I can’t deal with the airport and I can’t deal with all of the the garbage in the air that’s coming in. It’s horrible when you step outside and instead of hearing the bumblebees and the birds and all of that, you hear and it’s just that I don’t want it to be my home anymore. That’s it really saddens me. It really does. I mean, I’m I’m not a mover shaker. It’s not like you’re losing somebody really grand, but I pay my taxes and I’m a decent person and I don’t cause any trouble in the city and you know, so it’s sad that I’m going to be leaving because of that, but my house is up for sale and I will be moving somewhere else and the first thing I’m looking at when I move there is where do the airplanes go? It is the first thing I’m looking at. First thing I ask the real estate agents. So, there are others I’ve talked to that are doing the same thing. They’re looking at moving. They haven’t put their houses up for sale yet, but there are three people who are that I’ve talked to. So, you know, do what you can for the for the other folks coming in. Thank you.
Mayor Pina: Thank you, Elizabeth Burn.
Elizabeth Burn: Good evening. I’m Elizabeth Burn from Des Moines, Washington. We purchased our home in December of 07 a couple of houses from Marine View. See, this is why I don’t like to do this. Told plans for third runway in effect intended for inclement weather and emergency situations only. On the spring of 09, I returned from the hospital with my son having heart surgery. As a matter of fact, policeman came to my door to get me to a barrage of constant noise, windows and dishes rattling, shaking, kitchen cupboards approximately every four minutes back then. Call the airport and informed we were now directly under the airport’s main flight path. This caused so much stress to my son’s recovery. You have no idea. Now jets roar over us every 30 to 60 seconds. I’ve counted about six flight paths from Marine View to Pike Highway. Forget watching TV with my antenna. I’m now forced to pay cable because the reception interrupts every 30 to 60 seconds. I have videos of that, by the way. The noise so loud, vibrations so hard, my security cam is constantly recording. It drains both motion and cell phone batteries because of notifications. Having a normal conversation outdoors, enjoying our garden, our deck, impossible. Not only because of constant noise, but spraying of who knows what. It often feels like it’s raining during clear days. All outdoor furniture, cars stained with brown drops. Asian cargo planes wake us up at 2 and 3:00 a.m. Wrote to the FAA last year. Told we’ll look into it. Never heard back. Had test done, test show. I have metals. You need to jet fuel in my body. No one in my family has ever suffered from asthma, but now I do. My pets suffer from respiratory issues. Both of them. We have written letters, calls, signed petitions, attended meetings to no avail. The entire council needs to get involved and help us. We have nothing against progress, but not at the destruction of our health and our beautiful city. Thank you.
Mayor Pina: Thank you. Thanks. That was the last individual that was signed up to to speak. Is there anybody from the public who didn’t sign up to speak who wish to make a comment on this specific issue? Seeing no one approach, that will take us forward to our aviation advisory committee conversation and presentation. I’ll turn it over to Michael to kick us off.
Aviation Advisory Committee Presentation
City Manager Michael Matthias: Thank you, Mayor. So we’re pleased tonight to have the our aviation advisory committee here for a discussion with the council. And we’re going to do a PowerPoint. And we’re going to trade off. I’ve got the got the click. So, if you just tell me when to when to change slides. You have before you binders that we’ve put together for council and our our committee. A lot of this reflecting or actually all of it reflecting efforts by the committee and by the the council to address airport and aircraft operations. And I think that based on the comments we just heard, no one is satisfied with where we are. And I think that I was thinking as the gentleman was talking about the the cellular requirements, how in terms of the pecking order, the city is low on the pecking order of the legal ability to impact operations at SeaTac. However, we do have pathways to make our voices heard to respond. This binder has a number of formal letters sent to the port, the airport, the mayor’s provided testimony before the Port of Seattle commission. And you know, I would I would say that that our efforts and that the focus of the committee is to try to be focused on areas where we can have an impact and that I think that’s a large part of the discussion tonight. I also want to do a housekeeping thing. Say Dr. Gora was kind enough to come tonight but has a early morning flight and we’ll be leaving I think at nine you said. Yeah. So with that we just like to walk through the through the PowerPoint. And I’ll just take the first slide. Basically the city last spring decided to establish an aviation advisory committee. this was happening in other communities. Subsequent to this, a little later on, the Port of Seattle decided to start a stakeholders roundtable. We’ve had one meeting of that committee. Our members are, Sheila Brush is on that. I’m on that and Ken Rogers is also on that. We just had one meeting. I think the jury’s out on the effectiveness or value of that process, but we will we will be hopeful. I guess that’s all we can do. Also so then we went through the process of identifying you know people that had applied and went through a selection process. The council appointed our current aviation advisory committee members. You know I’ve had the pleasure of working with them and and all of them have brought just such you know commitment, knowledge, devotion to finding solutions to this and that’s what we want to share with council. And it’s been a pleasure. The the issues I think are pretty clear critical issues. We’ll walk through what those are. The process is that we need to be interactive with council and council is anticipating and we’ve already done it in certain respects. the position of the committee relative to funding opportunities and involvement that we’ve that the the city council has approved funding for certain activities that we passed policies and try to establish our position relative to airport operations collaboratively with other cities. We’ve we’ll talk more about this, but we’ve also engaged our neighbor our partner cities Normandy Park, Burien, and SeaTac in an interlocal agreement to join forces to review the sustainable airport master plan environmental process. And Susan from our staff will talk more about that on one of these slides. The PowerPoint is a starting point for discussion. We’ll go through it relatively briefly, but the thing is it’s fact with so much information. Any of the slides could be the subject of an hour long discussion. And finally, the binders provide documentation as to some and not inclusively, but some of the activities and positions and efforts the city has city has taken. And with that, go to our next slide. And Wendy, I believe this is do I have to do?
There we go.
Wendy: Okay. So, the charter established by city council to guide the work of the committee. The city of Des Moines is establishing an aviation advisory committee to make recommendations to the city council for actions that can help resolve negative impacts created by the SeaTac airport to utilize a science-based approach to determine appropriate recommendations to provide to the city council and to acknowledge and record pertinent information brought to the committee. by its members, members of the community, and invited guests. This was not expressly stated in the charter, but it has been our practice at committee meetings.
Okay. Charter for the Aviation Advisory Committee. to provide comments on the environmental impact statement of the SeaTac airport sustainable master plan SAMP. Address frequency of operations, a function of SeaTac airport and parallel impacts on local transportation health and noise. Address current aircraft movements on the ground and in the air. address the process to site and develop a second regional airport. participate in the Washington Aviation System Plan and followup delineation of responsibilities within the National Airspace regarding aircraft flight operations to include the FAA SeaTac port of Seattle and other issues as determined by the city council and the aviation advisory committee.
I wanted to talk just for a minute about one of these points and then are we going to have discussion of each part? Okay. So the point of addressing the process to site and develop a section second regional airport. This one seems to be not getting much wind beneath its wings. And I think it’s it’s an important one that we really need to do. And as far as the environmental impact statement of SeaTac airport, the sustainable master plan, I was looking over some notes that we got at one of our meetings from a presentation to the SeaTac City Council by Elizabeth Levit, director of planning and environmental programs. And she gave this on January 23rd, 2016. It mentions that SeaTac is the fastest growing large hub airport in the United States. What is needed to meet the demand of such a growing airport? They’re going to go from 88 operations per hour to 120 without adding runways. They’re going to move more planes faster despite more gates and aircraft on the airfield terminal. They’re going to add eight gates now to the existing 92 gates, and they still will need 35 more gates. They’re going to add hold rooms and security processing for 43 new gates while handling existing passenger traffic. Potentially, they will build a second terminal within SeaTac to serve most of the new gates on the land land side. They need to remove bottlenecks and choke points on airport roadways and drives. Expanding the terminal may wipe out existing airport drives. They want to elevate the gap between goals and future emissions by doing the following. Building a spreadsheet model that measures energy, water, GHGs, and operational costs. Entering final concepts and evaluating building options. estimating future emissions based on energy and water use, develop management approaches to reduce the gap. And the last one that she said was that they intend to conduct formal environmental reviews either using a SEPA or a NEPA. The NEPA is the National Environmental Policy Act and the SEPA is the state environmental policy act. And even though she stated that, we have been hearing recently that now they’re considering not doing either of those environmental impact studies.
City Manager Matthias: Thank you, Wendy. And I think that Susan will address some of the environmental options that the board that the airport is considering. Thank you. Let’s move on. David and can you pass him the mic, please?
David Clark: Thank you. Wendy my observation is that Wendy’s observation that we don’t have very much knowledge about the issue of citing a second airport is correct. There hasn’t been much traction gained in in pushing that forward that I am aware of. There’s a lot of a lot of a lot of heat and not a lot of light so far on that. I wanted to note that to dovetail with the SEPA issue here that in terms of writing impact statements typically one looks at alternatives to the proposed action. In this case the proposed action would be expansion of the existing airport which is hazardous at best. So it puts the light on the alternatives which might be identified in the sighting study and yet we haven’t got any progress there. So there are a couple of moving parts right there and sort of immediately ahead of us that I think are going to need a lot more attention than we frankly given it so far. So to to go through the slide here we have a process where we have regional and state review involving the FAA airlines port of Seattle and the airport. We don’t have a lot of knowledge now as to what that process might be. I believe you can correct me if you if you wish that FAA leads any sighting studies. I believe and they’ve done they’ve at least begun such a process with Puget Sound Regional Council on the baseline study. That’s not a sighting study. That’s just a baseline study. City actions are in your folder under the the tab that says sighting of a second airport. We’ve got a few comment letters that have been developed by the city over the past year about the Washington aviation system plan. Again, that is not a sighting study, but it’s it’s warming up to that.
We have a follow-up letter to the Puget Sound Regional Council which is about the baseline study basically endorsing welcoming them to the to the field of of study and volunteering to be of assistance and that’s as far as we’ve gotten so far. The air cargo study is a third study that is involved with this since air cargo is proposed to be a very large proportion of the increased activity at the airport that would have to be involved in the sighting study as well. We’re just that study has just just begun. We don’t really know very much about that since we don’t have a official legislated seat at the table on that one. Recommendations and there here’s the point. This is an area we can do more indeed. What we have listed here is coordinated effort with city council to provide input to this process. Actions could include greater council participation at Port of Seattle commission meetings and one-on- ones with the commissioners. We do have new two new commissioners which will be who are attentive it seems maximize coordination among cities and frequent updates communicating this clearly to the port of Seattle. I think it’s important to note here that all cities are in agreement in general on the issue now based on published legislative agendas. We have not coordinated with other cities regarding a sighting study as yet as yet. And identifying effective opportunities to participate. This is open-ended is so what do we do next? What are the next right things to do here? And we haven’t gotten that far yet. But we focus on leveraging the highline forum which may be underutilized. The forum is now attended by port commissioners, Port of Seattle and surrounding cities. Might be a great venue for Des Moines to lead here if we step forward to help set the agenda, circulate actionable items in advance for discussion, adoption, and recommend to treat this as a working group where actions are initiated, taken, not info sharing. These are ideas to elevate the highline form into this discussion to help forward the idea of the of the diligent sighting study that is timely given the EIS work that’s we hope will occur but again there’s a lot of work to be done here and it’s highlighted in this last item which is to assist in identifying the governance dynamic for a second airport we are unclear as to the process that will be necessary this was done I believe 20 years ago or thereabouts. It’s been a while and the the rules have changed since then. So again just I just knowing what the institutional arrangements are for getting this done. We have not completed or even done much progress on this yet. So that’s all I have for now.
City Manager Matthias: Thank you. Let’s move on to the environmental review of the sustainable airport master plan and have Susan walk through some of pieces.
Susan Cezar: Yes. So for the environmental review related to the sustainable airport master plan the what the focus will be is inputting into the environmental review process at appropriate points where our comments can have the most effect and be on the official record. We’d like to take a look and assess what can be done in relation to recent statements by the Port of Seattle of some what they are considering. I don’t think any decisions have been made as of yet, but they’re considering that they might do a national environmental policy act environmental assessment and a state environmental policy act environmental impact statement. And this appears to be a decision point that we should evaluate to to how we could best input or influence that decision. What we’ve done so far and intend to do, we’ve invited the Port of Seattle environmental director for a discussion with the aviation advisory committee. We’ve engaged with the airport to challenge decisions that appear to enhance growth outside of the framework of the sustainable airport master plan. We’ve joined together in a formal interlocal the cities of Burien SeaTac and Normandy Park to pull our resources and knowledge for the review of the sustainable airport master plan environmental environmental evaluation. And we’ll continue to provide input into the scoping and environmental review through our consultants that we hope to hire together and the environmental officials. We met again today actually. The recommendations of the committee is that the committee and the city council review and continue to provide formal input at the most effective points in that process and have a follow-up meeting with the port of Seattle environmental director for question and answer session with the aviation advisory committee.
City Manager Matthias: Thank you. There’s one more slide for Susan to go through, but I want to mention that one of the one of the aspects of this interlocal agreement with our neighboring cities has been for the SEPA officials, each city has a SEPA official. Susan is our SEPA official. for the SEPA officials to be the ones coordinating the review with a consultant and looking at impacts relative to to SEPA process and if there are issues that come up either for individual cities and/or that are outside the SEPA officials review the cities can then also attach letters to the to the to commenting to the the airport on our concerns as individual cities collective cities and also through our SEPA officials. So we try to maximize the the value of the resources we have focused on environmental environmental process. So let’s move to the next slide.
Susan Cezar: Thank you. Some information that was given at a recent port commission briefing by the port staff. The sustainable airport master plan is currently now proposed to be divided into two phases and at least you know at their their thought process or their presentation at that time this was in February has one phase being called near-term projects which is looking out to 2027 and those projects would move forward into the environmental review that we previously talked about and then there would be a second phase which is termed the long-term vision and that would be future planning and future environmental review. One issue or problem with this approach is that some of these decisions that might be made in the first phases could kind of constrain what happens in future phases financially and with capital commitments. The port staff. This is kind of what we talked about already, but that in that presentation, this is what was presented is that they they will go potentially with a a national environmental policy act environmental assessment and a state environmental policy act environmental impact statement. And we are concerned that the port will not undertake the most rigorous environmental review. It’s we also note though that the Federal Aviation Administration plays a key role in determining what the environmental review process is. And I do want to note that the fact that they’re talking about doing an environmental assessment. When that environmental assessment is completed, it can result in either an environmental impact statement still being prepared or it may make a finding that there is no significant impact and then a statement would not be prepared. So, you know, we don’t really know at this point, but they are talking about going through that extra step and not going directly to a national environmental policy act environmental impact statement.
City Manager Matthias: Thank you. It’s complicated. Let’s move on. So Mark,
Mark Proulx: So a really important aspect of this naughty problem is to understand what actual authority and responsibility and role each of these players who are involved has. And it’s our hope that we can get a window into that via the this stakeholders advisory roundtable. The reports that we’ve had back from the initial meeting are not encouraging in this regard but we’re I think willing to cut them some slack at least for a bit. The we are trying to actively participate in the start we’ve you know Sheila Brush you know Ken Rogers and Michael Matthias are on that committee and they’re not bashful about trying to you know push for accountability which is really good you know because a lot of these committees are you know if not if not prodded in the right direction will kind of default to a lot of buzzwords and you know you know corporate speak and things like that and say what I call like a verbal souffle, a lot of volume and not a lot of content. And so you know we have to plan as a committee for an outcome that is such that we do not get the information we’re looking at looking for from the start. And that’s going to be it’s going to be really interesting to find to start doing the digging necessary to find out for each of these organizations you know starting with the FAA which is a you know great big thing in and of itself and all the way to the port and everybody else you know they do certain things but how much of what they do is actually statutory and how much of it is just become custom because that’s what they do and it’ll be it would be interesting to kind of you know sort of tease that apart. part to find out just what sort of authority and what the basis for those various authorities are.
City Manager Matthias: So, thank you, Mark. You know, one one thing that’s interesting about about what Mark’s just describing, we had an a discussion at the aviation advisory committee and Mark brought up the concept and every everyone pretty much added in relative to how can we have accountability if we don’t know who’s responsible for what. And I don’t know if anyone else has had this experience working with the airport, but when you go to the airport and say, you know, what can you do? They go, we can’t do anything because it’s about the gates and the airlines. And then the the airlines, you know, well, no, that’s the FAA covers that. And so you hear multiple explanations. And so what our goal was was to pin that down. And at the first the the meeting of the the SeaTac the the stakeholders roundtable we insisted on that to the degree that it’s now the first subject that we brought up at the next meeting and hopefully there’ll be answers to those questions. I think we’re all not holding our breath to see what the response is going to be but but like Mark putting that forward as a critical component of knowledge. Now that’s become has a wider audience and support to to learn exactly what it is. So, that’s some of the value of of what we’ve been doing. Let’s move on to Steve.
I’m going to turn the mic off.
[Some technical difficulties with microphone]
Steve Edmiston: Okay. All right. Okay. Thanks. I’m I I’m going to try to just highlight some things because there’s just so much to cover and and we want to have discussion. So on on as we think about how do we address future impacts not not the here and now which Sheila’s going to talk about because there are here and now problems we have to address. You know to me there’s just a couple of bright shiny objects we should pay attention to right now. And obviously as Susan talked about we have this SAMP review coming up and it’s kind of scary but if you think about it it’s also a great it’s a trigger for us to actually do something. I mean, if we didn’t have a samp coming up, there would be nothing triggering our action and we would just be suffering without sort of a pathway. So, it’s interesting that we’re scared about it, but we really want to engage in it and that’s exciting that we can try. So, it’s going to have the environmental review and we’re going to talk about noise and we’re going to talk about health in that process. Susan covered it. It’s just really important. It’s just just really really important for us to be engaged in. Also on health, there is this ultrafine particle study. You probably already know about that. Here’s a here’s a thing I think that that that you would want to think about and and just keep in mind as it goes forward is it was paired back by the legislature to just a phase one, which means at the end of it at the end of the two years, we’re going to have some data, but we’ll have no actionable item on that data. We won’t have a phase two which is what we need. In other words, the impacts of what we discover in phase one. And as we monitor, as members of our council are involved in the in that study, we want to be vigilant that it is always on the table to go to phase two because that’s if we don’t get there, it’s waste of time. So that’s important. The budget provides always the last bright shiny object. And this is at least to me personally so exciting because this is the update or the the new version of what we did 20 years ago which is purely focused on our six south king south of the airport cities and how we are negatively impacted by this study by the operations that are here now and being proposed. And that’s the focus. It’s not balanced by the economic growth. It’s not bal it is let’s find out how bad it is or how bad it could be. And I I think as a council that’s an area where we just want to just babysit that and cocoon that and make sure that’s not interfered with and that it goes forward and that we fund it. It’s it’s just a great opportunity. So, those are three just great things to focus on. City action. Again, I would mention support for the ultrafine particle study and really, watching for how we, ramp up, get the end of the study and define a phase p phase two recommendations. Just two points to make. On that second bullet, it talks about you know it says slow down the planned airport expansion until they work on mitigating a working plan to mitigate. If you think about it, this is so logical. You know, you know, we e there’s two ways to go. One is one is let’s go forward as fast as we can and figure out the problems we caused, which is kind of the way it works now. or it’s like let’s slow down, figure out the problems that we’re going to cause and decide whether that going forward makes sense at all or how it goes forward. And so to the extent that we can be involved with our consultant to define really scoping is going to be so helpful. So we want to think about that. And then finally, and I think this is a this is a boots on the ground suggestion that everyone on the council whenever you run into someone on the board and everyone on our committee, whenever we engage this, we need to be involved in defining what engagement will mean for our community. Because right now, if you listen to what the Port of Seattle is saying in their presentations is they will define what they think engagement is. And right now all we’ve heard is engagement is poster boards in a gymnasium with 40 different people saying well this is my little piece and I actually don’t know the answers to your questions. And that’s a really really frightening level of non-engagement. And we need to be involved in saying if you want to engage our communities and our neighborhoods and our historical districts and everybody that needs to be aware, then bring us to the table and help us understand how many public forums we need for our communities because that’s what we need for engagement or whatever it is that we need. It’s a really really critical piece and if we don’t jump in they will define how they engage us and then say we were well informed and we participated. So I I would say that hang on to that.
City Manager Matthias: Thank you for that time Steve. Thank you very much. Finally we’re going to talk about current impacts and ask Sheila to talk about that.
Sheila Brush: Okay. So my role is to address current impacts and the process to hold the airport accountable for current impacts, not just the growth associated with the SAMP. And we all recognize that it’s too much and there’s a lot of numbers being tossed around the 66 million that the public commenter made in comparison to Dallas Fort Worth. That’s a century agenda. I do not believe that will ever happen. I was fortunate enough to meet for two hours last Friday with Peter Commissioner Steinbrueck and he he does not believe that will ever happen. So we should get that number out of our minds because we need to focus on the here and now and what’s going to happen under the SAMP. I feel like that century agenda has us all in hysterics. I’m part of the hysteria. And it’s never going to happen. But at the 45 million mark that we’re at now, it’s too much. And under the stamp, they’re going to they hope to go to 57 million and that’s absolutely too much. I’m not going to really elaborate on the start because we’ve talked about the start too much, but the city has encouraged the airport to engage in the start. But the most important people at the start is the FAA is there and the FAA has to come to the table. They have to provide community engagement because in 2018, which is this year, the FAA is going to roll out their procedural changes under NextGen. And I know everybody’s heard a lot about NextGen. What exactly is it? But they are going to roll out their procedural changes. the the port frequently says that we’re not under nextgen, we’re under frequency. But yet the most important impact under nextgen that we are going to deal with is something called wake recategorization. And I don’t have enough time to walk anybody through wake recategorization. So I thought the most important thing I could do is provide you a takeaway. And this takeaway is actually was hired by the FAA. It’s the US Department of Transportation, the National Transportation System, out of Cambridge, Mass. And this talks about the benefits of Wake Recat. And there’s four to go that way and the rest to go this way, for all of you. And the most important thing is that I hope that when you look over this because this is how great it is. But if you just look at the math when they did all the testing under wake recategorization, they could get 14 more planes and this was FedEx cargo planes per hour. So you times that by 24 hours and this is the big freighters 14 more per hour. You times that per hour, that’s 336 more planes in a 24-hour cycle. So, we wonder how our little three runway SeaTac is going to grow and are they going to pour another tarmac? No, they’re not. They’re going to grow through wake recategorization which follows under nextgen. And so, NextGen is the program, but what is going to impact us over our heads is wake recategorization. So, I hope you all look at this. Now, just remember this is pro because this was the study of why it’s so good. And then that brings us to updates from other airports, which brings me to my next handout, which is lawsuits. And Phoenix so far is the only one to win a lawsuit against the FAA, which is super important. And so I gave got this from the city of Phoenix. This was actually from the city of Phoenix, the airport, and it’s on NextGen. And it talks about really what NextGen is and what it means to us as a community. And is it safe? Yes, it is. It is a safer procedure and is it effective? Yes, there is efficiency. Is it environmentally friendly? No, absolutely not. So again, I hope when you look over what is here and what is nextgen and how it will directly impact us, it will spark your interest that we have a tsunami coming. It is coming and it is our responsibility to warn all 230,000 citizens that we have a tsunami coming. And so we do need to have a clear understanding of NextGen. This is just the start of all the information that’s out there. We do need to get the FAA to the table because they are federally responsible to come to the table and start explaining it. And where am I at because I digress so much with so much information. And it may be involve working with the airlines. The airlines is also at the start is at the table. And regarding scheduling of flights, work on current voluntary FAA approval, night flight curfew, engagement with the port, what actions the port has taken and will take to explain, encourage, incentivize airlines needs and reasons for curfews and what actions they are taking to encourage voluntary compliance. I will end it with in Oakland Oak Oakland the start roundtable I’m gonna be very honest I’m very disappointed with the design of it and that was designed by the port of Seattle and to quote the port of Seattle because they know how unhappy I am by the design they said it is unique like no other across the nation well I will tell you what is happening across the nation in the city of Oakland for instance their airport community roundtable which is actually comprised of elected officials city managers and community spokesperson they have been able to after a two-year process, it doesn’t happen overnight, they’ve been able to get a reduction in nighttime flights. But ours is not that. Ours is just strictly made up of non voting members and city managers. So I I don’t have great faith that we’re going to do anything quick and fast. We also meet every other month instead of every month. But there’s a lot of work to do and there’s some important people at that round table. So, I encourage everybody to come because there is public comment and only being able to meet every other month. I really encourage people to come and there’s food.
City Manager Matthias: Okay. Thank you, Sheila. So, I think there’s a couple things. We’re going to go to question discussion with the council and the committee, but I think that the two things that are striking is the complexity of these issues. The strategic I think Steve’s referring to points of access to try to make something happen. And then thirdly, you know, the the degree of effort and time and attention all of our committee members have put into just getting to this point. So, we really appreciate that. With that, we’ll turn it over to the the council if you have questions for our committee.
Council Questions and Discussion
Mayor Pina: I actually have I have many, but I’m going to share with my with the body here. I I I’d like to I I normally wait till the end, but I got to ask this one before I get, you know, before I turn it over to the rest of the council, please. So, please indulge me for a second. You know, I’ve got notes over everything that everybody said and I’ve been pretty closely connected to much of this as you’ve seen my signature and you’ve heard me in conversation. I’m trying to figure out the priorities. One of the things I struggle with is some people think that Paine Field is the sighting of the second airport. I agree a second airport’s necessary, but I’m curious if the committee really thinks or or has some reason to believe that if there were another airport sited that this airport still wouldn’t try to grow to its capacity. I I’m not sure that that I don’t believe that they would wouldn’t continue on the path they’re on even with the second airport. So, I’m not saying it’s not important. I think it is important. I also know that it is something that, you know, we’re we are involved with the the PSRC. I know that their studies going to come forward with recommendations. Those are going to the state because it’s the state that’s going to have to argue over how to get that and where to put that other airport. And I’m not sure they won’t say it’s Paine Field. So, I I’m asking because this everybody knows how slippery the slope is and and how what a challenge it is to deal with this entity. I do have the person that was here earlier that said we don’t remember what happened 10 years plus ago. I was part of the ACC representing the Highline School Board. Contrary to what is often said in the community that the ACC lost. Well, the ACC in court in fact didn’t lose. They won under an environmental law, but after the ruling, the law was changed. That allowed the third runway to be built. So, there was a victory and a loss. But the truth of the matter is millions and millions of dollars went down a path and with the intent of victory they got there and then they lost anyway. So we have to try a new approach and that’s why I’m really pleased that we have the minds around this table and the community involved in this. But we need to figure out where is our priority. What are we going to focus on? And so I’m going to go back to that singular question. And then I had Deputy Mayor Pennington recognized and council member Bangs and I I firmly believe that there isn’t anybody sitting here that doesn’t want to go next. So priorities please.
City Manager Matthias: All right it worked. So the question about you know I thought it was very very good question you know if Paine Field or elsewhere does the port want to grow anyway and my my sense and I don’t think I’m speaking speaking for the committee because we haven’t talked about it as a as a committee necessarily my sense is the port has undertaken and almost to me the word is enabler the port has become the enabler for the next 25 years of air traffic growth in the region to be a SeaTac airport that’s the master plan. That’s the century agenda. So they are without in a vacuum saying well we can handle it and this is our plan to move forward to handle the region’s needs. And in essence that takes an enormous burden off the state because they have their needs met because the needs of the few that live in the airport pathway are being measured against the needs of everybody in the state or even everybody in the larger region who actually don’t care that we have a lot of problems in our six airport communities. So if all of the cities are in agreement that we need a second airport to stop the growth or to slow the growth or to move the growth, if the port continues to take the position that it can handle the growth, the state is I don’t see a whole lot of incentive for the state to jump in. So it seems to me that the port is the lynch pin of this. if the port who publicly kind of says it’s on the fence and it’ll support studies about a second airport and it’s not saying we won’t do it but we love studies. If the port were to go to the state and said you know what we’ve really looked at this and we are capped the smart thing to do would be to get that second airport in eastern Washington that would change the conversation enormously right I mean almost overnight but if the port continues to say we can enable all the growth for the next 25 years at SeaTac we just don’t where does the energy from any other legislative body come from because the problem’s been solved as long as they’re pitching that. So it’s a real challenge and I and I think that’s why when we say bright shiny object, second airport, focus on the port of Seattle, I think that’s the way it has to go. I don’t know if that’s an answer to your question. I don’t think they stop until So I guess my point was I’m back to the question of priority. Okay. because when when I look at this even given what you just said I mean it seems clear to me we continue to work with the new director we still try to make inroads we do need to understand the roles and authority because we still get that it’s not me that’s them that’s and they say no it’s not me that’s them and it’s that it’s still this everybody’s pointing to everybody else we need to get that clarified but because I want other people to have time to ask questions. I’m going to leave that as food for thought. If if someone could come back with that even if it if you’re not sure tonight, you want to wait till your next meeting. Because again, you’ve talked about letters that I can write, I’m okay with that. I’m I’m okay to go out and do this work. I want priorities. I want to set focus. I really want to go do this. I really appreciate what everybody on this committee is doing to go through the information to to ferret it out those key issues and and give us a shot. But I give me something to go with and I will Deputy Mayor Pennington and then Council Member Bangs.
Deputy Mayor Pennington: So, first off, thank you all for this is a huge undertaking and thank you for the folks that that the the folks Sheila and and some of the others that kind of started this and got the conversation going in our community and thank all of you for stepping up because it’s it it it’s it will become a life’s work, I believe. And so, so that’s a big commitment. So my question is what’s the message that you feel that council members should consistently deliver to port commissioners? And and and I say that keeping in mind that that we work in a in a process that that we we follow what’s called parallel engagement in government. So, council members engage typically with port commissioners. The the city manager would engage typically with, with the the port, you know, staff and and executive director. So, I think it’s important that we we deliver our message. Steve, you talked about telling telling the story or having having, you know, engagement and and I’m a firm believer that that if we don’t tell our story, somebody else will. And it’s not the story particularly that we want to be told. And so again, what’s the message that you feel that that you want us as a as a group of council members to consistently deliver to the port commissioners as we engage with them?
Sheila Brush: So I’m going to take that I’m going to take that real quick. So, I think the most important thing we have to do is is is change their minds because I went to a breakfast and the mayor was there and and unfortunately you left early because the closing statement was so alarming by the outgoing port commissioner and president Tom Albro and I actually recorded the meeting because it was the recording equipment wasn’t working. So, I’ve listened to it many times and former commissioner and president Tom Albro said to a jam-packed room that there could be an another airport tomorrow and SeaTac is still going to grow and it is up to all of you elected officials in this room to go back to your communities that are compa that are complaining because their complaints are a poor man’s proposition. So, it is up to you to change their minds. So, it is really up to us and up to you elected officials now to change the port staff and the port commissioner’s minds that it’s too much. We can’t take anymore because their mind is growth.
City Manager Matthias: Just one comment too, man. I I think that to appreciate this is not a one time. This is an interactive dialogue that we will continue to have with the council. And I also want to mention that I think the issue of priorities is certainly not something that just, you know, is off the cuff type of let’s do this. I think that the the committee needs to really carefully consider what those are and then let the council know what we think the priorities are. Same with the messaging. You know, Sheila’s given an example and maybe there are others that could be formulated into something the committee believes. Maybe it’s the words that Sheila’s used or something some elaboration on that. But I think that in some respects next steps might be congealing around responses to what the council is is is asking as a concept. So it’s an ongoing process.
Deputy Mayor Pennington: Before you hit that, I mean I I can tell you just from the two people that have spoken so far the that that the term slow down and let’s let’s work with this is is starting to resonate a little bit. And and if that is part or of that message, that’s fine. I I’m already using it, but I’ll continue to to to work forward with that. But did you are you did that? Yeah. And I I think I don’t know that you have to answer that tonight, but but as a group, you know, and it goes along with the priorities, your your priorities and then the the story or the message that that you would like to us to consistently deliver. and and you know that can always be updated and changed, but you know, we’re going to we’re going to start it and we’re going to start the conversation and we’re start telling our story chapter at a time until we get them to believe in what we’re doing and understand our story and take that home and and tell it to the rest of them because that’s what we have to do.
Mayor Pina: And Ken Council member Bangs had a comment or question that she wanted to so she needs a microphone.
Council Member Luisa Bangs: So I I will state that in the past and even now I have to recuse myself from comments. However, I will say this. I totally believe that this group has done an amazing job. I have a lot of respect for what’s been done. I know all of us who live under the third runway or 16 right or 16 left, 16 center, doesn’t matter. It impacts us all. So I’m I’m just I just can’t tell you how much pride I have in what you’ve done because it’s not an easy job and yet and yet you persevere. So I think as council members I I know we’re all very supportive right now. I can’t be but but at this point in time I would ask the question what what else is Burien SeaTac Normandy Park and the city of Des Moines’s planning to do besides the letter or or getting someone to come in and review SAMP. Is that is that the first step? And then there’s other things that will be going on. Has there been a discussion related to that?
Ken Rogers: Ken, did you want to go? And then Okay, thanks. And and and I appreciate those comments, but I wanted to pile on something Steve and Sheila said. I was at that meeting with Sheila when Albro made those statements and it was pretty stark. He’s gone now. It occurs to me that when you ask about the question of priorities, that’s exactly the right thing to be doing right now because the start committee has only met once and it’s, you know, we’re trying to have a good bring a good attitude to that process, right? A productive and constructive attitude to that process. So we’ll see how it turns out. But what we’re working on are two separate projects that might you might have to think about the priorities differently. So there may be a little refinement to the question that you you want to ask so that you get a satisfying answer. Steve talks about the future which is important because we have the a better chance in my view to influence that. The strategic airport master plan opens the door to us to participate in a process that’s going to last longer than any politician here at the port at the state or anywhere else. To try to unscrew something that they get wrong in the beginning is going to take a whole lot more time, effort, and energy and probably be unsuccessful in the end. versus trying to get involved in the front end of that and steer it in a direction that makes more sense to us. So, we have the future set of priorities and we have what’s going on right now and I think Sheila’s focused primarily on that and that’s super important because that affects the everybody here and it affects some of the shaping of how we and other communities participate in this process of this airport master plan. Now, I don’t want to state the obvious, but the port of Seattle doesn’t care about a second airport because it’s not going to be in their jurisdiction. It’s it’s not going to be in King County. So to the extent that their growth might their growth aspirations might be influenced by that I would be surprised if they would have a less of an lesser appetite for growth if a second airport were sited anywhere became county and that’s highly unlikely. So the question in my mind or at least why I was motivated to do a lot of different things but not the least of which was try to get involved with this is who’s responsible for what and how do we approach that process with the limited amount of time energy and effort that we have collectively and individually. So in my mind, the priorities are first and foremost to find out who’s responsible for what so that we can take our resources and marshall them in ways that make sense to the future project and the current project just to that’s not a very good way to describe it, but the process going forward and the process we’re all living with now. And the only way to do that with any kind of hope for some kind of successful outcome is to target those energies on the entities that are in control or are influential whether it’s the port staff on on the lowest level or the commissioners, state legislator, federal government, all that stuff. So until we have some clarity around the right way to go about that for those two different projects, I think that we we’ll not get the best use of our our time and energy without that clarity. So
Sheila Brush: So the city of Burien has an aviation advisory committee as well. they just reformed in the new election year and regrouped with new people. The city of Federal Way has a mayor’s task force and they are doing a charge report that they hope to have done. It does not have any city council. And it is not it it’s different. I’ll just leave it at that. And they are doing a charge report that they hope to have done at the end of April. Normandy Park is a partner. They don’t have any aviation but they’re a partner in this process for such a small city. The city of SeaTac of course was the host city if you will in putting the proviso together with their 250,000 chunk of change to get everybody to to get behind it. And am I leaving anybody out? and the city of Tukwila. I was kind of surprised to see that they were even on the start because at every meeting I’ve ever been to they really only see the SeaTac as an economic engine and not as an impact. And I think does that answer your question?
City Manager Matthias: Okay. You know, I’d like to add to that there’s also the forum of the mayors and city managers that meet from the four cities, Normandy Park, Burien, SeaTac, and and Des Moines meet monthly. This issue comes up all the time. it was kind of the original issue. So, and I think that I really agree with the idea that coordination is critical among our cities and all the comments that have been made because Ken’s right on target. You know, I mean, you know, where do we where do we focus, right? We put 25,000 into the Ultrafine. We’re going to put $50,000 into the sustainable airport master plan review. We’re going to participate in the Proviso. financially we’ll bring some information to council in terms of how do we also participate with that so I mean yeah it’s it’s it’s complex but it really needs to be targeted where we get the most effectiveness and I think one key thing about the sustainable airport master plan which has already been said is it gives us a window it’s a legal requirement that we get to come and and that that wouldn’t be the case business as usual we wouldn’t necess necessarily have that opportunity. And I just mentioned one other one other piece of this relative to jurisdiction is that in the state of Washington, there’s one of the revised code of Washington, the laws is that ports are directed to facilitate economic development. And that’s their job. And in some respects, you could say that’s a perverse incentive to trying to address environmental impacts that will constrain their ability to meet the requirements of the of the state law. relative to what their duties are. So there’s there’s a number of places where it it you know it’s a huge fight, right? But that’s that’s that’s absolutely no reason not to proceed with all you know full speed ahead. But just as a comment I mean the dynamic is complicated.
Council Member: Asked with economic growth. Do you know if if that is their soul charter or is it And the reason that I bring it the reason I asked this because it reminded me I I just had a a thought that it reminded me of the the somewhat dual mandate of the United States Forest Service which is which is tasked with preservation of forest, promoting economic development, promoting recreation, you know, these various things. And so their job is not to do any one of those things at the expense of all the others. And I was wondering if the port had a similar kind of construct that they are supposed to operate on but they choose to ignore.
City Manager Matthias: There’s two parts to the to the answer. Of course they’re charged with transportation. Right. Right. And logistics. But the the other thing is that essentially you know that the the world’s kind of dividing itself into global cities. Well, all global cities have major significant airports. Typically, they’re built outside of the urban area, right? In our case, we’ve got one from what 1947 that’s, you know, civil aircraft, right? So, so there’s there’s a lot of layers in answer to your question. Certainly a subject we could take up more.
Ken Rogers: Yeah. Just a a partial answer. So actually in the by the port’s mission statement in its bylaws does include still reference to their role as environmental stewards as a balance. Now what’s interesting about that is Commissioner Albro’s last legislative act was a number of bylaw amendments in which he had proposed including taking out the word environment from the mission statement. So you get an idea of what the difference is in terms of who the commissioners are about how different and fortunately commissioner Felleman sort of said I don’t think we should take the word environment out and the rationale that commissioner Albro gave on the record was he thought it would simplify things. So fortunately we didn’t remove environment from the bylaws. It’s still there but it’s precarious and but it’s still something we can hang a hat on.
Mayor Pina: Okay. So I had council member Back. Did you still want the floor? And then council member Mahoney.
Council Member Rob Back: So it’s been said already, but thank you guys, the committee for your passion. This is a Goliath of a fight and it’s a long fight. But especially thanks to Steve doing this fight two minutes at a time at the Port of Seattle or three minutes, whatever you’re getting. Appreciate your passion. So the question is kind of for Steve and Michael mentioned, you know, the point of access. So on this ultrafine particulate study, I know it’s a ways off before we see the results. They’re going to come back with some findings obviously there’ll be some data we can look at maybe some health effects of what is happening to us what’s happening to some of the people that spoke tonight. So maybe it’s too soon to say, but when we get that data, is this something the committee is thinking you’re just going to go to the port with that or are we going to go back to the state saying, “Hey, state, you’re the ones that helped get this data for us. Get on our back here and help us fight this thing a little bit.” I mean, where where do you see that information being used once that data comes in? or I is it is it too soon to say but
Steve Edmiston: Unless someone else wants to jump in I I I think it’s I think that is a very big question. There is a a very robust committee of people that are involved in monitoring this study. All of whom will have I assume feedback about what the data when it comes in what it means. And is that data sufficient to justify the state actually going back and funding a stage two that would then say here’s some here which was in the original legislation to take the data that comes in and then say okay now that we know that these elements are in the environment now we need to have the study how do they impact human beings how do they impact the natural environment so we don’t have that phase two right now and I think the issue that I am of I am concerned about is how the cities and and those that are, you know, in this in living in this environment want to protect our quality of life. How it is that we can continue to make sure that with, you know, if it if it comes back and says, you know, this is all much to do about nothing. Noisiness problem, pollution’s not a problem. You know, have some more coffee with your coffee in the morning. It’s all good for you. I don’t think that’s what we’re going to find out. I think we’re going to find out that there’s there’s problems is to make sure we keep pushing towards phase two because if there’s not a phase two that would make it actionable, right? We’d have data and then we’d have a phase two and says, “Okay, now we know we have problems. Now we can get information and more science to make this actionable. It’s much a do about nothing.” So I I think as we monitor it’s every in the back of your mind it’s always like are we taking every step possible so that we are positioned when this data comes in to go on to the phase two which will actually allow us to use this information for something that’s actionable to protect our citizens and you know that’s all you can do I think while the scientists go forward or you know make sure no one’s interfering with the scientists that’s a big issue you know paying attention to the comments that are provided in review processes, who’s making the comments, what are they kind of suggesting, where is it steering? We don’t want to do that. We want the scientists to to do the science without undue interference. And so we have to really pay attention to subtext and what kind of communications are floating around so that they’re independent.
Council Member Back: And last question, do we know has there been any similar study in the nation with other communities near a major airport as far as the ultrafine particulates and the health effects and all of that? Is there anything that this is going to be compared to or is this a groundbreaking thing that has never been done before?
Steve Edmiston: Well, probably knows a lot about that, but I know that there was a there is and and the scientists on this study already have cited this repeatedly. The Los Angeles study is out there and I think there are other studies out there and they all tend to suggest we’re going to find that we’ve got problems. you know, now to the degree of satisfaction of all the stakeholders, will they all agree that there’s enough science to suggest that, you know, we’ve got problems or do we need more studies? That’s always going to be the debate down the road. But there are already studies underway or completed. And LA being one. Sheila, do you know, do you have the list of others that are underway?
Sheila Brush: They’re just underway. Okay. LA. But I do I do have some breaking news though that came out of DC and I meant to give this to to Michael and I’ll hand it down and this is just April 4th and this isn’t an omission but this is about the noise which is another impact. And so, as you know, our congressman, Adam Smith, is on the National Quiet Skies Caucus. And why why they named why the public is naming these Quiet Skies, in case you didn’t know, is because there was actually an a congressional quiet skies caucus. And so, 18 members of Congress just on, April 4th, did submit in writing as members of the National Quiet Skies Congress, Quiet Skies, Caucus and Congress that they are drafting the fiscal year 2018 transportation housing and urban development appropriation bills to seek funding to look at the noise that the DNL because at 65. I mean, it’s I I’m kind of at a loss for words because it’s not even science. It was a group of people. It was a test group of people that said, “Yeah, that’ll work.” And it took place in the 70s. So, this just came in and it is for the nation about the millions of Americans that are being impacted and that they need the funding to go back and truly do a true noise study. And so, this, as I said, just came in. And Adam is not excuse me, Congressman Smith is not a signature here, but he’s very active in all of this. And I meant to hand this into Michael since I just received it through the National Quiet Skies Caucus.
City Manager Matthias: Yeah, good news. Thank you. Anecdotally, what I had heard is that initial noise level was set based on the volume of a lawnmower. Probably, you know,
Council Member Mahoney: Well, how many people cut their lawns? Yeah. Wouldn’t be that offensive, I guess. So, I I have council member Mahoney, then I have council member Nutting. Council Buxton, I I wasn’t sure. I I didn’t see a signal from you. So, okay. So, we’ll we’ll go down that way. You have the floor.
Council Member Matt Mahoney: I wish we could almost make the quiet skies terminology add not only the the noise pollution but the air pollution in its reference and priority. I’ll just make that quick statement. I got a few questions. I’m going to put I’m going to ask four of them concerning the SAMP and I think they could be answered sort of together. First of all, I just kind of get an idea of what the anticipated answers or what you’ll be looking for in this samp. I know a consultant’s going to do it, but if we could get a little bit of an example there, I’d like to know who will be evaluating not only the sustainable airport master plan, but also our comments and honestly, are they independent? because it seems like we get things flavored with with a direction that we or we would not win in. Let’s put it this way. I’m looking for somebody independent. And then has there been any word on who would be the consultants that would be answering the SAMP questions as far as what they are, who they are, and what their background is.
City Manager Matthias: So yeah, so right now the four cities are in the process of both soliciting and you know reviewing as they come in consultants you know qualifications to do this. I think that it’s you know I’m not saying this is the endgame. I’m just mentioning that what are the resources available to a city like Des Moines and now joining with other cities to review the SAMP and what we’re able to do is challenge or say, you know, we don’t feel that this was adequately reviewed or addressed in the in the in the SAMP and the environmental documents. And if we were to come to a point where we felt that we were not being heard, we do have recourse to legal process if we choose. That’s always that’s always out there. So I think that this is potentially something that we that to the degree to which we take it serious, it can have serious consequences in the process, hopefully in a way that that addresses our concerns.
Council Member Mahoney: All right. Next question. As far as the air air cargo study, I see it’s happening. I hadn’t had a chance to really glance through it, but, who’s actually in that group is doing that study? I’m sure the port probably has a hand in it, but who else would?
Sheila Brush: No, actually independent. So, it’s a Washington State Department of Transportation, but I just want to qualify the air cargo study. A lot of people think that it’s new, that it’s happening now. We’re scrambling. It’s not new. So they the original sighting of the air cargo study was back in 2015 and it really interesting when they met to study the it’s about growing cargo. It’s not about moving cargo from SeaTac. It is about the entire state growth cargo and how they’re going to manage it. And what’s super interesting is back in 2015 when they originally came together to talk about this, it directly impacted the third runway because they realized then we have to start using the third runway all the time. And at the time, Commissioner Creighton on record said, “What about the promises we made?” So I I do like that little story because it was recognized as recent as 2015 that they did promise not to use the third runway as they’re using it today. But the cargo study is from the Washington State Department of Transportation. And I believe Michael can correct me if I’m wrong. And it is to look at growing cargo within the entire state, not moving cargo out of SeaTac. And I think people are misunderstanding that this study is somehow going to give us some relief and that’s not the intent of this study. Maybe some relief will come from it, but that is not the intent of this study.
City Manager Matthias: Thank you. Let me just add one thing. I think that we had you know, Senator Kaiser’s staff person come and talk with us about the air cargo study and then I think the next month we had the environmental director from the port of Seattle talking about the sustainable airport master plan and the commonalities in both those presentations was that they’re seeking capacity not the addressing environmental impacts. the the air cargo as Sheila points out under the state department of transportation they have a aviation division of one person they look at systemwide aviation impacts but this is where the complexity in all of this comes up right is that you got the state looking at certain aspects of a of a the statewide aviation system however you got that is governed essentially by the FAA and the port of Seattle so you got federal involvement you have state involvement, you got local involvement, regional involvement, you know, and then so it’s just this multi-layered complex situation. So the state really doesn’t control SeaTac. It can it can influence the port because SeaTac’s international airport abiding by, you know, the International Civil Aviation Organization rules that were established in the 40s for the the freedoms of of aircraft travel on the planet. and they’re subject to conventions established long ago in a completely different international context. So it’s extremely the point being it’s complicated and no and and and the point I think and Sheila I think you’re making this point it’s not a panacea there’s no one particular solution it’s multi multiple solutions to address all of this.
Council Member Mahoney: I noticed something that I’m not sure I think it’s missing I believe new technology whether it’s the hybrid stuff or whatever they’re talking about could eventually maybe be a solution maybe for the noise as well as the emissions. And I think maybe that should be one of our priorities as far as we go further maybe spurring that on and encouraging that type of technology to come forward. I mean, I know it’s a ways off, but it’s something we’re doing for our children and our grandchildren. So, that’s not necessarily, I guess, a question as much as a statement other than the fact that should it be one of our priorities? And then the last question and I’ll just gonna go on the second airport. I’m kind of of the mindset that I do think it benefits us because I’m a businessman and I believe in supply and demand and I believe in competition. You go to other places and I always say this, you go to San Francisco, you’ve got San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland airport. You go to LA, you got LAX, Burbank, John Wayne, Bob Hope. Airlines compete. They like to take real estate. And I think what we do is we set it up where by driving for a second airport, one of the major drivers is we get maybe one of these major airlines to move their hub there and that’s where they focus off of. And I think at least if it doesn’t reduce it, it pauses it and gives us more chance to to fight the fight. But I also think that a a city of this size, the mistake was they didn’t site one 25 years ago or 30 years ago, however long it would have should have been. So my question is with that in mind, I would like to see or get some ideas from the aviation advisory committee about what’s our battle plan. How do we who do we go after? Who’s the message? What do we say? who can we persuade? I want to help and that that that question right there. And the other qu the other question is what what as a city council can we do for the citizens advisory committee? I’m sorry, yes, citizen the aviation advisory committee as a committee. What else have we talked about that we can do for you? So, those are my last questions and I’ll let somebody answer them.
Ken Rogers: Well, I’m wondering those are open-ended. I’ve got a couple more folks that want to that want to jump in. And I’m thinking unless somebody has, you know, on the committee right now wants to take a shot at that. I think they have that to think about and work on at an upcoming meeting. And is that
Mark Proulx: Yes, please. Can you can we have a microphone turned on next to you, please? Oh, you’re going to get two. Seems to me that the last part of your question dovetails a lot with Matt’s original question around priorities. What should we prioritize? And I wish I could say that in the course of our discussions we we figured out that there is there is a priority that there is a that there is a path to quote unquote success on this thing. And I think what has become enormously clear is that we don’t know that there may be one that will emerge after over some time but at this point we don’t have a clear one priority the one buzzword that we can all talk about here but there are there are several and there I don’t think there are too many to to sort of wrap our minds around and and the the number one thing that comes to me is emphasizing that the the looming public health disaster that we may be facing. I think that this is a whole different situation. Well, it’s a it’s much more intensified situation from the third runway era because we we do have ultrafine particles. We do know that the the science behind the the decibel levels is faulty. We do have a lot more evidence of public health effects here. So when we talk about having a a the potential for public health emergency, that gets a lot more attention. I think that’s important as a priority is as a message that that can be properly crafted, moved around. The other one is that obviously the this the current airport ain’t got to do it. We got to come up with other alternatives. I can say a couple things about that. there’s nothing set in concrete around around these projections of of cargo. That large part of that they the port has made it sound like that is immovable demand when in fact it’s been a conscious choice to sell Seattle as a hub. We don’t have to be a hub. Okay. The actual local demand, if you want to talk about local demand, it’s going at about the same rate as population, 3% a year, which is manageable. it’s the hub that’s the responsible for the bulk of that. The other the other part is that it may not be a second airport. We’re talking about alternatives to to satisfying demand at the airport here. It may be a few different options to handle. It doesn’t have to be another airport necessarily. It may be multiprong. But the idea is here that there are a few talking points that we can talk about as priorities. Getting the the second airport study more solidified. identifying public health and really paying attention to the SAMP because the strategies that they’re using to endrun environmental regulations I think are are are there and a very strong potential. So there’s three things there but it’s like it’s like looking at at looking at a maze there. How many different ways are there to get through the maze to some end result? We don’t know at this point.
Council Member Mahoney: Well, the one thing that I would say when I mentioned priorities, I wasn’t looking for one. I real it’s it’s too big for that, but when the when the committee meets again to come back with the feedback to the council be really appreciate it.
Mayor Pina: Council member let’s see council member Nutting and then council member Buxton.
Council Member Nutting: I just have just have one comment and and a question I guess. Sheila brought up Oakland and over the years they’ve been very successful over airport airplane noise. I don’t know if it’s the municipality, I doubt it’s a topographical issue, but anybody that’s had the pleasure or displeasure of flying into Oakland, basically the plane drops out of the sky onto the runway and when they take off again, it’s straight up in the air. And that can’t be topographical. That has to be because of what municipalities have done around them for noise control. And if noise control is one of our things that we want to take on, looking at what they’ve done over the last few years on on legislation to take care of that as well would something that I I suggest we take a look at because they’ve been very successful.
Sheila Brush: The the thing the thing with Oakland is that that it’s different from SeaTac and this is why we always hit a brick wall is because the city owns the airport and so that and it’s interesting that the cities that own the airport like Sky Harbor they push back against the FAA and they say no these procedural changes are unacceptable and our port is partnering with the FAA because these procedural changes are going to allow them to grow. And it’s interesting on the cargo they had a cargo convention within the last four months and at this cargo convention it was a national cargo convention and it was hosted this time at the city of at the airport and one of the opening statements was SeaTac airport was never designed to be a cargo facility but we’re going to make it work and it’s not working and they know it’s not working and so it was interesting because when I met with Commissioner Steinbrueck he recognizes that cargo needs to go that that that is such a stress on our community, especially at night. So, there is immediate things that the port could do. And they’ve got to quit pointing the finger at the FAA, but it is a at an economic cost to them. And that’s why your voice has to be but our quality of life is dim is diminishing. So, we have to again go back to changing their their program to grow and we need to be a constant voice of they’re done. And other cities are recognizing that they’re done because it doesn’t matter what airport has it. It all goes back to the state because it’s not, you know, in a way the port is like the Gambino family. I mean, they just are responsible to no one but themselves. And I say that directly to the port. So, this is nothing new. I kind of like saying it. And no disrespect to anybody with the last name Gambino. So, did you get everything asked?
Mayor Pina: Okay. So, I think, our last, question goes to Tracy. You get cleanup.
Council Member Traci Buxton: Two microphones. Whoa. Stereo. Well, echoing everybody else, thank you. This is a lot of work and and you meet other times besides tonight. So, it’s it’s a lot of a lot of passion and effort from a lot of community volunteers and minds and hearts. So, thank you. I just had other than the all the other questions that have already been asked, one question of clarification, Steve, in regard to the air particle study. I was a little surprised to find at the Highline forum that it was divided up into that there was going to be a phase two required and somehow possibly even a phase three. that the study now was just trying to determine that there were particles in the air and that phase two could determine what kind of particles they were and that phase three would determine the health impacts of those kinds of particles. Am I did I misunderstand that? In other words, what I’m what what I if you can comment on is this going to turn out to be a two or three or a four phase study when the first phase doesn’t even get the their results until December 2019. I’m a little concerned about we’re trying to move forward with all these other things and we’re kind of waiting on pins and needles for this health impact, especially when when the sound regardless of the validity of the sound impact studies, we still have navigation easements hanging over most of the heads of our residents. And so this is a a brighter hope. Can you comment on that?
Steve Edmiston: You you and I are at the same meeting listening to the same thing. And I and I think you heard it more or less correctly and and the I guess the message I take away, you know, other than we have to be vigilant in monitoring going forward is this is not something to wait on. You know, we don’t we don’t want to say, well, we’re not going to engage on the subject of the potential health and environmental risks from the activities of overflighting aircraft because in 2019 we’ll get some information that might lead to another study that will be in 2021 that will lead to another study that’ll be 2023 because none of that will ever help us on the samp. It’s going to go on and on. So, study’s great. Let’s monitor it. Let’s be vigilant. Let’s get a phase two and phase three or a phase two get to the impacts. But I think and I I just to shift back to something I have found extremely encouraging about this evening is that I just made some lists because I think this goes to priorities, you know, setting priorities because this committee can do that. It’s a mess, but this is the committee that can sit down and say, “Here’s your one sheet. Here are the five things. This is the order we think they’re important. we gotta then you got to have messaging behind that and I think it’s a brilliant question simple question but this committee can do that and you know if that all falls under a battle plan that’s a larger one you know we can participate in that and what’s encouraging is that what we’re hearing as a committee is you want to engage in this process and get out in the community and that’s cool I mean that’s cool that’s a legal term cool yeah that is awesome so and it actually goes back to an off-handed comment you made at the very first meeting was I want throw a punch and and and I think we’re kind of circling back to say let’s do that. I think I think you know we can really get on those things. Those are the right questions. I think we’ve been like gathering information and kind of like okay where where is this all stuff? We we can do that and I I think we can. I’m guessing the other committee members think that we can. I think we can do it faster than another six months. You know, I think we can really fast track that the answers to those questions so that when you’re out in the community, we’re all saying the same thing. The benefit that will I’m so sorry Tracy to to to take this but the benefit of that will also be I think an incredible opportunity for leadership by this city for the other cities because if we’re out branded me if we got the messaging right you will be followed and that will make it so much easier for the six cities to hang together is my guess because they’ll all go I want to follow that’s right they’ve got it figured out this is what we’re going to so boy I I want help answer those questions. So, I’m I just segued to that. I don’t know if I answered yours.
Council Member Buxton: Oh, I in fact it I my questions could be I I think it would be great at this point to to defer to Matt’s last question. I thought that was fabulous question.
Sheila Brush: Can I add something that Yeah, I was So, this is something I spoke with Michael about yesterday that I was taking on with Quiet Skies, but I would love for it to be a city project and that’s because So, I’m as I said, I met with Commissioner Steinbrueck and I want a town hall. I don’t want I want a commissioner town hall where we get asked the questions and he said yes. And so, I was going to ask Commissioner Felleman and I’m sure that Commissioner Calkins will say yes. So, I was going to do it under quiet skies and then I spoke with Michael about it and he thought it was a great idea and I would love to do it under the city of Des Moines. I would love to just do it as the city with the city council and with Michael and to work on that, but I think that we deserve at least a town hall where we can ask the and I don’t want to skew the commissioners. What I want is to have the citizens to be able to ask the important questions about our present and about our future and to get direct answers and that’s only fair. So I think that that would be something really powerful and again being the host city that we could all work on. And I’ve already gotten one one yes. So I mean I’m almost there.
City Manager Matthias: It seems like a reasonable idea. The only thing that I would like to do in preparation for that is I’d like to go back to I mean the the concept of getting us together cohesively answering the questions. There not that many questions there to ask the the I think what the council said in a lot of different ways is almost the same thing tonight. Anything from priorities to battle plan to you know whatever. So if the committee could help us come together so that when we walk into that room we’re already on the same page with our with our view our messaging everything and then you I think it would be a beneficial discussion. I you know I don’t know what its outcome would be but because I you know the statement was made I think by Ken Rogers earlier that you know this will outlive any of the politicians that are here and any of us in the room but that the fixes that you can put in place early on are going to be the most impactful. So you know let’s do this right if we’re going to do it. And I think you know again I can’t speak for the entire council. I think it it sounds like a reasonable and a good idea to me. I think the community would benefit from it. But I think it it has to be we have to be together and ready to do this and then we need to do it in a way that they will feel comfortable coming and working with us.
Sheila Brush: Absolutely. And and and I think with that
City Manager Matthias: Michael do you have some closing thoughts? Yeah. Well, think I should do this full time. Is that what Well, you say in the beginning you said any one slide could take an hour. Well, you know, you’re ahead of schedule, right? You know, I you know, I I think that I think that this is a pretty critical discussion and I think that committee taking on kind of an understanding of these issues and establishing priorities, communicating those to council and finding what the message is that we want to consistently deliver is powerful. And in some respects, that’s really all the power we have, right? is the messaging and the complaint and the strategy of how to utilize our energy and our understanding of of these of these issues. So I think committee has a meeting Monday and I think we have our agenda wasn’t I thought we’d review tonight. I think that’s exactly what we can do and start working on on the priorities and you know I think that like I think it’s along the lines of and it’s sort of the David Goliath perspective but it’s that focused effort by people accomplishes a lot and I think that we have the potential for focused effort from everyone in this room at this table and the community and and so let’s let’s throw throw the punch. Let’s get ready to duck, but let’s throw the punch. So, anyways, thank you. Thank you everyone.
[Applause]
Closing
Mayor Pina: We do have other business. We have five minutes that we could extend or Michael had suggested that the city manager report and emerging and emerging issues could be moved to our our next agenda or Yeah. April 12th. April 12th. And can I just also want to thank staff who’s here to do those reports. I think this might have been informational hopefully for everyone. So, oh, you know, it just dawned on me. I was thinking they were really, you know, they were here for to be part of that team here. You know, get there. Look boxing gloves. I don’t know. Anyway, so with the with the council’s indulgent to modify the agenda to move these to the the April 12th, everybody? Okay. Okay. Okay. So, we do have consensus to that. So, before we adjourn, the the last comment I would like to make is that because I’ve seen the outcome look like a win and go the other direction. That’s why it’s really important to me to have us come together and do the right thing and do it and do it really well. and and I I everybody has said here that that I think that the body of work that’s been done so far the the commitment of the community and the people on the various committees is amazing but that will help us hopefully it’s a different approach it’s it’s but it will hopefully give us the punch that matters okay so with that do I have a motion to adjourn so move second I have a motion made by Deputy Mayor Pennington, seconded by Council Member Nutting. All those in favor, raise your right hand, say I. I. We’re adjourned. Thank you for coming.
1This is a machine-generated transcript generated on the fly by Google/Youtube/AI. Accuracy totally not guaranteed. Provided only as a convenience and to help people with disabilities. Caveat lector!